David Cameron says UK will support French mission to drive Islamists out but insists forces will not engage in combat

Britain is prepared to take the risk of sending a "sizeable amount" of troops to Mali and neighbouring West African countries as David Cameron offers strong support to France in its operation to drive Islamist militants from its former colony.

As news emerged that insurgents retreating from Timbuktu had set fire to a library containing thousands of priceless historic manuscripts, Downing Street said the prime minister told François Hollande on Sunday night Britain was "keen" to provide further military assistance to France.

...

Britain has also sent one RAF Sentinel surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to Senegal to help with the mission. The Guardian reported last week that a small number of British special forces soldiers were on the ground in Mali advising the French.

Are France and Britian acting unilaterally? Isn’t that the worst thing in the world? And, hmmmm... didn’t someone in a presidential debate bring this place up not too long ago? I think the media minions of Great Leader mocked that man. Oh well, down the memory hole now.

7
posted on 01/29/2013 6:49:01 AM PST
by AD from SpringBay
(We deserve the government we allow.)

Two months ago I never heard of Mali. What I find interesting is not that “everyone” seems to be willing to put boots on the ground in Mali, but why there and not all the other places we have been hearing about for the last decade.

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle, the French captured an English colonel. Taking him to their headquarters, the French general began to question him.
Finally, as an afterthought, the French general asked, “Why do you English officers all wear red coats? Don’t you know the red material makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?”

In his bland English way, the colonel informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats are so that if they are shot, the blood won’t show and the men they are leading won’t panic.

And that is why, from that day to this, all French Army officers wear brown pants.

Let’s see now—following France to protect French interests in former colonies.
That’s always worked out so well.
Zero would put our troops in with targets painted on their backs and suicidal RsOE.
Nuke `em from orbit!

It's not a question of that. This is not a good thing. It is a failure of US leadership.

The USA IS the major political power on the planet. YOU are the leaders of the West and the Free World. None of the other major western powers will involve themselves in a foreign escapade without (at least) the tacit approval of the Whitehouse. The fact that some of them ARE now taking the initiative in foreign affairs is not some great american triumph in forcing them to do their bit. It's a consequence of the Bumbler-in-Chief's erratic foreign policies. He over analyses situations, and can't seem to make his mind up. That weakens American prestige, it emboldens your enemies, confuses the neutral nations, and frustrates your allies.

Consider the Libyan crisis that got rid of Colonel Gaddaffi a bit back. The British signalled early on that they were ready to assist any US policy initiative in the area, much as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the US administration said and did nothing. When the Brits put forward the idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddaffi bombing his own people, Hillary Clinton said loud and clear that the US was opposed to that, so the Brits backed off (of course). Then after a while, when the scale of what was happening became clear, Clinton backtracked and sent US warships in to evacuate civilians and show the flag. The administration vacillated and ummed and ahhed for WEEKS, and you just can't do that with fast-paced foreign affairs crises like that. Eventually Britain and French went ahead on their own, but precious time had been lost, and the West did not capitalise on the situation as well as they could and should have done. And now we have Islamists and extremists on the rise in North Africa.

This situation is nothing for Americans to cheer about. The Anglo-French initiative in Mali basically boils down to "we don't trust you to do the right thing any more".

But that wasn’t by design. It wasnt BO saying loud and clear “It’s not our problem, you lot take the lead for a change”. He flat out didn’t do or say anything. He effectively sidelined the US by refusing to make a decision. How is that possibly commendable? You can’t make a virtue out of confusion and incompetence, even if there was a desirable side affect.

I think it's highly unlikely that BO was trying to force a result in that manner. As the saying goes, it's rarely wise to attribute to design what can be explained by stupidity.

It's not a question of the government being "virtuous", it's a question of them adequately discharging their duties and responsibilities. You're implying that it's a good thing that they muddled through a situation, abdicated their authority, refused to use power because of sloth and/or fear, and then get lauded for the one happy outcome (that they didn't plan for) out of the many failures caused by their indecision.

I think we can legitimately assert more is expected of elected representatives. Or it should be.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.